|
| Home | Guest - Not logged in | |||
|
» Register
» Login
Gear Reviews
Documents
Tools
» Contact
|
Reviews > Footwear > Trail Shoes > Dunlop KT-26 Shoes > Owner Review by Roger Caffin
| |||
| Reviewer: | Roger Caffin |
| Age: | 61 |
| Gender: | M |
| Weight: | 63 kg (139 lb) |
| Height: | 166 cm (65") |
| Foot Size: | 8 UK, wide fitting (EEE) |
| Email address: | r dot [surname] at acm dot org |
| Home: | Sydney, Australia |
I started bushwalking (the Australian term) at 14, then took up rock climbing at University with the girl who became my wife and is my walking partner. Later on we took up ski touring and canyoning. Winter and summer, we prefer long hard trips by ourselves: about a week in Australia, up to two months in Europe/UK. We prefer fast and light in unfrequented trackless country. We would be out for at least three months a year. Over the last four years we have reduced our pack weights from 18 - 20 kg (40 - 45 lb) each to about 12 kg (26 lb), including food, for week-long trips. I designed and made much of our lightweight gear myself.
I am also the maintainer of the Australian aus.bushwalking FAQ web site www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/.
| Manufacturer: | Dunlop | |
| Product Name: | KT-26 | |
| Year of manufacture: | Somewhere between 2000 and 2006 * | |
| Country of manufacture: | China | |
| Materials: | Synthetic and suede uppers, EVA foam and natural rubber soles | |
| Listed weight: | n/a | |
| Measured weight (pr): | 654 g (23 oz) for UK size 8 pair | |
| Style: | Very low cut, ‘kinetic sole’ | |
| Colour: | ‘Steel Blue’ | |
| MSRP: | N/A * | |
| Review Date: | 12-Nov-2006 |
* Year of Manufacture Note: the shoes do not change from year to year (as noted below), so I can't tell what year they were made in.
* Price Note: under Australian law manufacturers do not list an MSRP for any of their products on their web site. By way of context, big retailers generally seem to sell the KT-26 for under AU$40 (US$30).
The shoe is quite simple in construction. There is a black carbon rubber sole, then a soft white EVA foam layer, and then a firm grey EVA foam layer. These are visible near the toe region in the first picture and here. There is no stiffening plate embedded in the sole. There is no rand around the sides, but the carbon rubber sole does curl up at the front. The print of the sole pattern is readily recognisable on the ground. In a rare departure from the norm, the sides of the sole slope outwards, giving a wider ground contact area. Inside the shoe there is a synthetic fibreboard ‘inner sole’ and a flat fabric-covered foam footbed. The uppers are based on a strong concealed synthetic non-woven fabric, with external trim consisting of steel-blue mesh, steel-blue suede leather and some silver-coloured cotton/vinyl fabric at the sides. There is a soft synthetic knit trim on the inside, but no waterproof membrane. The tongue is anchored only at the root. The shoelace is a soft flat tape, unlike so many others which are hard round cord. The top of the ankle has a small amount of foam padding.
Under Year of Manufacture I have written ‘Somewhere between 2000 and 2006’. What this means is that the shoe has not significantly changed over all that time - and more. Unlike so many other designs which only last for a year or two before the marketing department redesigns them, these shoes show almost no change at all. A pair bought several years ago is the same as today's production. I know what I am getting. In fact, the Dunlop Footwear web site gives the history of this shoe as follows (verbatim):
KT-26-HERITAGE
‘Mr. Jerry Stuberfield in Portland, Oregon developed KT 26 in 1976. Mr Stuberfield was an athletics coach who came up with the principle of kinetic action and developed the unique lugged sole to apply this principle.Kinetic action means that the shock waves are taken sideways and very little up the back of the leg making the shoe extremely comfortable for running and walking. KT means Kinetic and 26 is the distance in miles of the Marathon. Dunlop was so impressed with the shoe that they took up the sole rights to market the shoe in Australia. The KT26 remains unchanged to this day and over five million pairs have been sold. Many thousands of consumers claim that the KT26 are the most comfortable shoes they have ever worn and many have been purchasing this shoe for over 20 years and some from inception. Many podiatrists and chiropodists have recommended KT26 to help overcome foot problems.’
I have quoted the Dunlop history in full as this really is an iconic shoe on the Australian market. This review covers the original KT-26, but it is worth noting that Dunlop claim about twelve direct ‘descendants’ of this design, as well as another slightly heavier variant called the KT-42 with its own range of descendants. Why 42? Because the 26 mile distance of the marathon converts to 42 kilometres. Well, that's the explanation Dunlop gives.
The KT-26 is so popular that it has become a standard clothing issue item for factory workers. This led some years ago to an amusing situation when some bureaucrat in the Occupational Health & Safety Department suddenly realised that there were tens of thousands of factory workers wearing these shoes without steel safety toe caps. The idea of steel toe caps in a shoe this light is slightly absurd of course, but this was a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. Dunlop solved the problem by creating a ‘safety’ version with a steel toe cap. It is available, but I can't say I have seen many workers wearing them.
Among walkers in Australia there are several schools of thought. There are those who live in these shoes and those who wouldn't be seen dead in anything less than a pair of heavy leather boots. There are also those who wear lightweight footwear in the ‘approach shoe’ class, in between the KT-26 and boots. Actually, there is also a small percentage who like to wear the even lighter Dunlop Volleys, but that group is fairly small. What is clear from my observations is that many experienced walkers wear KT-26s, while boots seem to be worn more by novices.
Every now and then someone tries to tell me that the KT-26s may be fine for day walks, but they wouldn't be adequate for a serious expedition with a heavy pack. Well, I have taken the KT-26s on several expeditions lasting up to 5 weeks, in Australia, Europe and Nepal. My pack has not always been that light. The argument is an amusing relic from 50 years ago.
I can't remember when I bought my first pair, and I am not sure how many I have owned - many dozens, I would imagine. Not that they have cost me very much. Each pair lasts me between four and six months. This may seem a short life, but in that time I will have been bushwalking for between 30 and 50 days, generally over very rough country and mainly off-track, and at altitudes ranging from sea level to almost 5,000 m (16,400'). Terrain has ranged from creek beds, over cliffs, to high alpine country. I am not fussed about the cost in the face of the very light weight and superb grip they give.
A close look at the first photo will suggest that the black carbon rubber sole is rather thin. This is correct: excluding the lugs the basic sole is about 2 mm (0.08") thick. This is radically different from a heavy Vibram sole. This has several interesting consequences.
I love the low cut on the KT-26s for several reasons. The first is of course that a low cut means a low weight. In addition, the top edge of the ankle is below my ankle bone, so there is no rubbing and no bruising. The shoe never interferes with my walking or ankle movement. The edge is padded with a little foam, so it never abrades either.
I have heard many concerns that a low cut shoe will fall off easily - especially in deep mud. Well, all I can say is that this has never happened to me. Perhaps the good lacing is responsible, as I have to undo the top two sections to get the shoes off at the end of the day. They do not just slip off.
The uppers seem very light, but in general they have been remarkably strong. This comment should be taken in the context of the very rough scrub in my normal walking areas. In the picture just above I have washed the shoes so they aren't so dusty and muddy, but the colour and fabric still seem to resemble the originals quite well. The leather trim has been mistreated very badly many times, with days spent walking in rivers even, but whatever tanning process is used for the leather makes it survive everything. The inner fabric, some of which is visible around the inside of the ankle, is soft and usually outlasts the soles. Usually - there have been a few small holes worn through at times.
In a shoe this light and cut this low, it would be silly to try to make the uppers ‘waterproof’. They aren't: water goes straight through the uppers quite easily. It also comes in over the top when I walk in a river. But water that comes in easily drains out easily as well. These shoes drain and dry quite quickly in the field.
The open mesh on the outside of the shoe at the front is very robust, but it does have one disadvantage. The inner structural fabric has a slightly porous nature as well, and neither of them stop fine dust from getting in. My feet can end up a bit dusty by the end of the day. Well, sad. The dust has never given me any foot problems at all, and a quick waggle in a creek is enough to get them clean again before I get in my sleeping bag.
The footbed is a plain layer of fabric-covered foam. No custom moulding here - not at that price. However, it is good fabric and foam and both usually last very well. The waterproof fibreboard sole under the footbed is suitably flat - a good thing for comfort. It lasts very well too, despite being used for walking in rivers. So the inside structure is good.
Some time in the distant past, when ‘arch supports’ became briefly fashionable, someone persuaded Dunlop to add an arch support at the inside edge of the footbed. It would seem that not everyone in the company was wholely in favour of this quite silly idea, so a compromise was reached and a little wedge of soft foam as shown to the left was tacked under the footbed with a spot of glue. Despite the softness of the foam and its relatively thinness, this arch support can still be felt. I find that after about half an hour with it in place my arch gets sore. It takes me about five seconds per new shoe to slip my finger under the footbed and flick this piece of idiocy out, and as far as I know most other walkers do exactly the same thing.
The laces are a simple flat bit of soft tape, unlike the hard round cord found on some more up-market joggers. Cheaper? Maybe so. But they work very well. I have seen my wife retieing the round shoe laces on her approach shoes several times a day: knots in the hard cord simply will not ‘lock’. I tie mine in the morning and that's it for the day. I think it is the softness of the tape which makes them lock so well. Despite this softness, I have never had any of the laces break, even after bashing through severe scrub.
The lacing runs up and down the front a fair way. This allows me to adjust the fit of the shoe to match my fairly high arch. In addition, the tongue has a little loop on it half way up the length, through which I can thread the laces. This works very well at keeping the tongue centred. If I don't use this loop the tongue does tend to wander off sideways - but this happens with most footwear.
The lacing goes through very simple holes punched through the leather-reinforced edges. No eyelets, no fancy webbing loops, just unreinforced punched holes. Curiously, I have never ever had any problems with these holes. They have never broken. This makes me suspect that the fancy webbing loops seen on some shoes are more ‘style’ than ‘function’.
I mentioned above that the uppers are porous and let water in easily, but this does not worry me at all. The open mesh uppers should make the shoes unsatisfactory in the snow: cold water from melted snow might creep in. This was tested last April in our Snowy Mountains area when we had an unexpected snowfall one night while carrying mainly summer gear. The pictures to the right show the snowy (and foggy) terrain and my feet in KT-26s on the next morning. However, with thick Darn Tough Vermont wool socks on and gaiters over the top of the KT-26s, I found my feet were quite comfortable. The snow was fairly dry, and did not really penetrate. OK, so my socks ended up slightly damp - but only slightly.
Yes, there are some places where these shoes don't work so well. I have pointed out how soft the sole is. This is fine when walking on a firm surface - rock, scree, grass or good forest floor, but it present a problems when I'm walking on a very soft ‘squooshy’ surface. The sole then finds it difficult to dig in and get a grip because it is so soft: the edges of the sole just curl up. I was walking in the French Pyrenees and found that some tracks were also used by cows going up and down to high pastures. The combination of the muddy track, the churning by the cow hooves, plus a little lubrication from wet cow dung mixed into the mud, made the track very squooshy. I had some trouble getting traction there.
Later on high up in the Pyrenees I was traversing granite scree as shown to the left, which should have been fine, except that the higher reaches of the scree still had a few inches of old snow caked over it. Well, some of it was actually neve, or almost sago ice. I had trouble getting a grip on this icy stuff too. I had to switch to a harder Vibram sole for this territory.
On the April trip in the Snowy Mountains mentioned under ‘Porous Upper’, I worried a little about getting a grip on the snow at the start of that day. However, I found that new KT-26 soles did work reasonably well on fresh crunchy snow. The lugs around the edge gripped well enough and we made good time. Actually, we quite enjoyed that day.
The heel cup is that reinforced bit deep inside the heel which serves to keep the foot square inside the shoe. Without a good heel cup there can be a tendency for the foot to rotate a bit and push sideways over the edge of the sole. Different people rotate their feet different amounts, and what is strong enough for one person may not be strong enough for another. The heel cup on the KT-26 is fine for me because I walk fairly straight. However, my wife rotates her foot a bit and this puts a little more sideways force on the heel cup - sufficient to cause it to slowly collapse sideways over about 7 to 10 days. This places too much pressure on the EVA foam under the heel, and this tends to collapse as well. Her foot ends up slightly off the sole, and tilted. So I have to admit that the very light heel cup may not suit everyone.
| Likes | Dislikes | |
|---|---|---|
| Very light | Limited life | |
| Very cheap | Centre region of sole wears quickly | |
| Fantastic traction |
Actually, I normally buy several pairs at a time so I don't run out.